Sunday, January 29, 2012

Nicolai Sennels’ latest essay has been published at Jihad Watch. Some excerpts are below:

Islamonausea, not Islamophobiaby Nicolai Sennels

We should stop using Muslims’ self-chosen word — “Islamophobia” — by which they paint themselves into a corner of being feared: it destroys communication. Instead of such a divisive term, we should insert a more approachable and factual word that preserves opportunities for bridge-building and learning: “Islamonausea.” This does not render communication impossible, but enables visitors to our Western cultures to notice aspects of their behavior that make us sick.

It’s no wonder that Muslims use the word “Islamophobia” so often. Lacking convincing arguments, charm or constructive contributions to their surroundings, being feared is the only way to gain at least some kind of respect. The term Islamophobia, fear of Islam, points to what Muslims want, not to what non-Muslims feel. Who is afraid of Islam, anyway?

“Xenophobia,” an irrational fear of that which is strange or foreign, also doesn’t work. Aversion to Islam doesn’t come from unfamiliarity with the religion; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. There’s no reason to fear being called a racist, either, since neither Islam nor Muslims are a race.

Our language needs a term that describes what many critically thinking people feel about Islam according to their own terms, not according to what Muslims wish us to feel or what the PC establishment diagnoses to scare us into allowing more voters for the Left into our countries. We need a term that simultaneously invites Muslims to realize what they need to change about their behavior and religion if they wish to advance from an embarrassing last place in the evolution of civilizations and to earn some real respect among the world community.

Natural reaction

As in many other nauseating situations, Islamonausea is a normal and natural reaction to something abnormal, not vice versa.

The nausea reflex is innate, and it is biologically natural and healthy to experience emotional and bodily discomfort with anything that is unpleasant, unhealthy or harmful.

There is nothing phobic or racist in feeling nausea when hearing about the Islamic massacres performed by Muhammad and his many devout copycats through history and all over the world today. The same goes for Muhammad’s sexual relationship with a nine-year old girl, and the cutting off of limbs and stonings in the name of Allah and his Sharia laws.

Thinking of Muslims’ epidemic practice of forced inbreeding (which damages intelligence and increases the risk of psychiatric diseases) -- often many generations in a row -- one may also experience unpleasant feelings in the abdomen. There is also no shame in feeling nausea when hearing about the extreme social control, violence and murderous examples made to keep and scare hundreds of millions of their women from enjoying their human rights to chose their own sexual partners, clothing and lifestyle.

The many calls for hatred, violence and killing of non-Muslims commanded by the faultless Koran are outright disgusting. Imagining the pinnacle of evolution being a planet-sized Islamic caliphate is not only a complete embarrassment to the human race; it may also make one lose one’s appetite.

[…]

Prevalence

The first use of the word that I have been able to trace, is from 7 July 2005, in a comment on this website, Jihadwatch.org.

Here, a person calling himself Sheik Canuck, writes in a comment to an article on Muslims’ positive reaction to the Islamic suicide bombings in London that same day:

“I don’t have islamophobia, I have islamoNausea, I’m sick of them all.”

The first time it occurred in a Danish newspaper was in a letter by this writer in Nordjyske Stiftstidende on December 30th 2011, entitled “We have nausea“.

The term attracted some attention when the comedian, atheist and Islam critic Pat Condell used it in a video from 2009 called “Apologists for evil.”

Islamonausea deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Help get Islamonausea into our dictionaries by using the word on blogs, in articles and in Letters to the Editor, and in everyday speech.

This is so true and the word I used in at least one of my Gates of Vienna articles was Infidelophobic. Watching current events i think this is an appropriate word for Orthodox Muslims. The Coptic Christians today are a good example of this. Why do the Muslims, in Egypt, have such an irrational fear of the Coptic Christians that they persecute so much? Why?????? Why does the left-wing media in the US fail to report this but afterall Arab Spring is a wonderful and peaceful movement.

"Instead of such a divisive term, we should insert a [..] word that preserves opportunities for bridge-building and learning: “Islamonausea” [..] enables visitors to our Western cultures to notice aspects of their behavior that make us sick."

Could be that I'm the only one, who finds this framing of the issue more than just a little problematic. We need an alternative label to facilitate "bridge-building" between Muslim "visitors" and ourselves? Excuse me?

Oh well, perhaps it's just a small spell of Progressivophobia that I have come to expect when reading a piece by this progressivist author.

Muslims could care less whether we Westerners are nauseous! In fact, the entire point of terror in all its manifestations is to cause us to be nauseated by our fear and terror. So, we are verifying to them that their terror tactics have worked!

We should say that we are Islamo-grossed-out because Islam is gross!

Oh wait! Is that hate speech?! Well, good, because I HATE Islam.

Hmmm. I am an Islam-hater. Yes, that has a ring. We should all say that we are Islam-haters.

"Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist."

...

"With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds — physical, moral, and metaphysical."

...

"On Catholic principles, the amelioration of moral evil and its consequent suffering can only take place by means of individual reformation, and not so much through increase of knowledge as through stimulation or re-direction of the will."

"Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to determine what is meant by evil, and in particular by moral evil."

...

"Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23)."

By the way, I'm surprised you're still up on blogspot. My blogspot blog was deleted because I DARED to put up videos of Muslims themselves spewing hate speech at the rest of the world. After several visits from law firms, blogspot unceremoniously shut it down. Don't forget what happened to Bare Naked Islam at wordpress - blogspot's worse.

I think I specifically said it was okay (or Christian, at least) to hate sin even if that offends some people.

Is it a human right to hate evil? Maybe. But it's still not a good idea. To hate evil consistently is to hate humanity. Which, if we're going to compare things to Islamic practice, seems more Islamic than anything I've ever promoted.

I offer detestation as an alternative to hatred. For starters, it sounds cooler to say that you detest something than that you hate it. Also, it's not a sin to detest things if they're ungodly ("detest" literally means to testify against something rather than harbor animus). So it's totally okay to detest sinners (including Muslims), while it's not so good to hate them. Okay, and mostly it just sounds cooler to detest than to hate.

Chiu: It seems to me that you often DEFINE TERMS according to your own personal opinion - which no one has any way to know - let alone discuss - let alone refute - because your personal opinion is highly malleable because you make it up as you go along to counter various aspects of your opponents' arguments that often reshape your personal opinion as you go along.

While it is EXTREMELY good that you are open-minded to change your mind, your self-referential method of arguing makes your logic a 'ghost' based on emotionalism instead of reason. To wit, however you FEEL is what you believe and argue.

When we discussed rape - and now discussing evil - it appears that you omitted or refused to read the definitional sources to which I referred you, and you continued to argue based on your own personal - and in my opinion 'uninformed by facts' - opinion.

It DOES matter what the typical rape prosecution LAW says when you are discussing rape prosecution LAW - and YOU are making claims about that rape prosecution LAW without appearing to have read it and without offering other sources that support your personal opinion.

It DOES matter what the definition of EVIL is when you are discussing EVIL. The Catholic church has over 2,000 years of theologians who have defined EVIL in three aspects: physical, moral, and metaphysical.

The Catholic Church does NOT define EVIL as humanity, and neither do I. Catch up!

The true evil is for society to make humans defenseless in the face of evil by refusing to allow humans to acknowledge and hate evil.

Hate is good for humans? If Catholicism teaches this, then I have to say that Catholicism may not be the best starting point for a rational perspective on what is good for humans.

You might have missed, in the discussion about rape, that I wasn't talking about what the laws say but about the practical effects of how the law is applied. If you want to go back to that issue, though, then feel free to answer the question I posed.

"Try the following thought experiment. One person, a rapist, has locked another person, a victim, in a room with the intention to compel the victim to have sexual intercourse. The rapist is not threatening any harm to the victim other than the direct physical effects of sexual intercourse itself.

Now, as it happens, there is a knife in the room. The victim grabs the knife and threatens the rapist with it, but the rapist is undeterred, asserts that the victim lacks the will to use the knife, and continues to attempt forced sexual intercourse with the victim. So, the victim stabs the rapist with the knife.

Now, there is no physical evidence that the victim was going to be harmed other than experiencing forced sexual intercourse, but there is sufficient physical evidence to strongly suggest that sexual intercourse was intended by the rapist, and that the rapist and victim did not previously have any sexual relationship. There is no evidence that the victim previously contemplated entering a sexual relationship with the rapist. And the rapist does have a history of sexual aggression.

Given all this...are you really comfortable making a judgment about whether the victim stabbing the rapist was a legitimate act of self-defense without knowing the sex of either the rapist or the victim?"

You did not answer last time, simply made accusations that, because I was not agreeing with your position (which was partly because you did not clarify exactly what it was), I must be morally equivalent to a Muslim. Which you may or may not have found to be a persuasive tactic when dealing with others...I personally find it merely odd.

Chiu: I would NEVER presume to speak for the Catholic Church; but, in my personal opinion, hate is a very healthy and useful human emotion when directed at ideas and actions which are worthy of hate.

I hate the Holocaust.

I hate Islam for so many reasons including its maiming clitorises of little girls and then forcibly 'marrying' those little girls to much older men with carte blanche to abuse and murder those girls.

I believe that the situation goes far beyond anyone merely detesting the worst actions of humanity. We should hate evil human actions. We should hate great human sin.

Our hate should motivate us to productive action to eliminate the cause of human evil and human sin.

Modern people are propagandized to accept that people should avoid having any disagreeable opinions.

Modern people are cautioned to be 'fair' and 'nice' and 'loving' to everyone - even mortal enemies in the act of mortal sin - against other innocent people.

Modern people are anesthetized from strong emotion by propaganda in schools, print and TV, and activities including vapid TV and repetitive computer and video games.

Eventually, people MUST recognize and fight for good - or everyone will be subsumed by evil and sin.

Per the rape discussion, I still maintain that you are asking the wrong question. Your question is akin to that famous question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

"Equality before the law or equality under the law or legal egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws."

All men and women are subject to the same laws with regard to rape.

Again, you appear to disagree with the measured decisions of various prosecutors, judges, and juries who convict more men than women of the crime of rape. Each case MUST be judged on its own merits, and I would fairly consider evidence in a jury trial before arriving at a verdict.

Finally, over 2,000 years of Catholic theologians certainly know more about the definitions of evil or sin than either you or I, and so provide a good start point to define the parameters of the argument regarding evil and sin.

Use my source of terms - or offer your own source for terms.

If your source is your personal opinion than your source is inadequate to the discussion.

If the law can really treat men and women completely equally, then why not just answer the question?

As for "personal opinions", that is precisely where I differ from totalitarians of every stripe, including Muslims. I rely on, and take responsibility for, my own judgment rather than that of any institution, no matter how long-established and powerful.

In order to have an intelligent and meaningful discussion with another person, baseline terms MUST be agreed upon - at which time the situations described by those terms can be debated.

Your baseline definitions of rape, equality under the law, and evil differ so far from mine that we are unable to participate in a productive conversation.

I sourced my definitions - which then provided CLEAR UNAMBIGUOUS definitions for any discussion. My sources vary depending on each subject upon which I comment.

You argue WITHOUT defining your baseline definitions and without providing the source of those definitions - and worst of all, often CHANGING those definitions as you GROW (Growth is extremely good!) from comment to comment.

Judgment is irrelevant here.

Definitions are relevant here.

Bias is relevant here.

Your bias is apparent in your poorly conceived question.

My reply to your question is that the 'law' clearly and completely FAVORS male rapists over female victims - which is the REASON that very few female victims of rape report male rapists.

I make my 'judgment' of the 'law' based on personal experience with dozens of rape victims - NONE of whom reported their rapes to the 'law' - despite the rape victims being TOTALLY traumatized for the rest of their lives.

Funny, but I have NEVER met a man who was accused of rape - falsely or not - but I have met DOZENS of traumatized female rape victims....

So definitions and judgment are both irrelevant, in your consideration, but bias is relevant?

So, in your view, the described situation, where bias cannot be applied, is poorly conceived because only bias matters?

Well then, perhaps you will agree with my point of view that women require special protection under the law, if treating them no differently from if they were men (which would be the ordinary definition of "equality before the law" and "an impartial judiciary") neglects the crucial element of "bias" necessary to protect women.

My original point, and the one that I will continue to argue, is that the law must grant special protections to women that are not granted to men. If these same protections are granted to men, this will work to the detriment of women. If these protections are withdrawn from women, this will also work to the detriment of women.

And because women are, as a category and individually, foundational to any sustainable civilization, what works to the detriment of women tends to work to the detriment of society. The key is to balance the interests of women at the point where further favoritism will prove more detrimental to society than not.

Ah Chiu: Read me more carefully. I wrote that definitions ARE relevant here, but we MUST be using the same definitions in order to conduct a meaningful conversation about situations leading to our independent judgments about those situations.

If I describe red as red while you describe red as blue, then we are lacking the capacity to converse about the effects of red and blue colors until we mutually agree on the definitions of red and blue - and our definitional agreement MUST happen before our independent judgments about the effects of red and blue colors.

If I am talking about the widely encompassing Catholic definition of evil and you are talking about your own unexpressed, unknowable, and perhaps malleable definition of evil, then we are going to talk at cross purposes to each other - especially when you accuse me of hating humanity based on your own personal definition of evil - a definition that I have no way of knowing - and probably disagree with anyway.

Definitions must be sourced. Your source - whether you cite another authority or yourself - shows your inherent bias - which is relevant.

Citing yourself as a source shows the most bias - and self-centered-ness - because you are being self-referential. To wit, you claim the right to set a definition because YOU are YOU.

Citing others as a source also admittedly contains a danger. As Muslims, Nazis, and Communists have proved, a lot of people CAN be wrong - even when they agree with each other and you.

However, my citing 2,000 years of Catholic theologians as a source for the accepted definition of evil just seems to make sense - especially when both your baseline definitions and the level of your discourse is so self-referential.

Your discourse is self-referential when you say that a discussion might hurt your feelings. The introduction of such emotionalism absolutely KILLS a conversation by putting the focus on YOU instead of your ideas which MUST compete in a fair marketplace - without people conceding points or stopping threads in order to protect your delicate feelings.

Fine. I'm defining evil as the simple absence of 'good' (in any degree), which is a bit broader than the idea of it being opposition to the desires and needs of humans. It also has less of a tendency to implicate humans as evil because, whereas opposition to moral good exists solely in humans, there are plenty of other things that demonstrate simple absence of such good.

Still, though simple absence of good qualities is not unique to humans the way that opposition to the needs and desires of other humans is, it is still characteristic of all humans.

Hate is a feeling of opposition to the needs and desires of another. Insofar as you indulge in hatred towards others, you are a source of direct evil in the Catholic sense of opposition to the needs and desires of humans.

These definitions are not particular, they are general. Saying that evil is the absence of good places evil and good in the same relationship as darkness and light (the most common physical metaphor used to illustrate the concept of good and evil). It also expresses a sense of many moral aphorisms that delineate the line between evil and good (rather than those that allow a large neutral category into which "normal" people generally fall). The same is true of 'my own', 'personal' definition of hatred, "hatred" has always meant the emotion of intense antipathy and opposition towards a person or thing.

I was being slightly ironic in my initial response to your declaration of hatred. It is not my feelings that are hurt by your "right to hate evil", but your own. Particularly as you identify evil narrowly as actual opposition to your needs and desires, which, as any moral philosopher worth the name understands, is only present in other individuals expressing needs and desires contrary to your own.

The difference is that you cannot injure, insult, or hurt evil as the simple absence of good. You can injure, insult, or hurt evil only as it is represented in the person of individuals opposed to your own needs, wants, and desires. And this alone is what must be encompassed by your "right to hate evil". Which is opposition to the needs and desires of humans. Whatever your Catholic definitions have to say about that, I'm willing to say that indulging in hatred is not a good thing.

Also, as you have brought up the issue of rape again, this time I would really like an answer. I'll post the question again if it has somehow slipped your attention.

The reasons why you choose these kinds of issues to make these dramatic stands of yours is rather opaque to me. I don't feel impelled to require an explanation, but perhaps you should think about it for your private benefit.

This is why I'm not keen on denigrating Islam by appeal to the "hateful" nature of the Quran (though I do believe that the written Koran is throughly corrupted, both morally and historically). It is so easy to cherry-pick the established teachings of a religion to portray it as being inspired by the spirit of hatred.

Chiu: Christian hatred of evil is the polar opposite of Islamic hatred of goodness.

You would have us believe that the vast majority of worldwide Muslims 'misunderstand' Islam and 'true' Islam might offer certain insights or benefits to the world, but I know better. True Islam is pure Satanic evil, and I hate it with every fiber of my being.

There are many who would have humans sleepwalk through life - failing to notice and omitting to care about the evil imposed upon themselves and others.

Emotion is frowned upon - strong emotion is forbidden.

Hate is a strong emotion and so arouses the ire of our handlers.

Still, I hate Islam.

Equally, I love God.

I believe that we are going to have to agree to disagree on some topics - realizing that we were born and raised in far different religions and cultures imbued with those religions - and willingly acknowledging that neither of us has perfect knowledge.

Were I so ready to let people destroy themselves, I would have no common cause with the Counter-Jihad at all.

Love is stronger than hate. Hate can drive men to murder, but it cannot motivate them to heroism. Only love binds together those who stand to defend their civilization against real threats. Only love commits the time and energy to productive industry and innovation to build up a nation worth defending. Only love makes life in such a homeland a blessing rather than a curse.

With love of one's neighbors comes the duty (and will) to avenge them of their enemies. If your love for your country is sufficient for you to risk death to protect it, then what need is there for hate of another?

Are you really so determined to hate? Do you really see no better path than to imitate the enemy of your soul? Is the strength of your hatred for others a sufficient reward for your friends?

Then perhaps our disagreement on the matter must be irreconcilable. As must our fates. Because if you persist in hate, then one day, whether before or after Islam is subdued, you will become the enemy of all that I love.

If you're going to define 'hate' in some special, technical sense, as not being an emotion which can be felt independently (or exclusively) of love, then I am left with nothing to say except that the majority of the English-speaking world does not agree with that definition.

Which is not a matter of such small consequence, if you insist on portraying yourself and your religion as being fine with embracing hate as a primary motivation for your actions. Most English-speakers understand "hate" to mean what it has meant since before the modern language developed in recognizable form, a debilitating emotion which displaced and injured the ability to feel happiness, peace, or love.

This is not some novel definition inflicted on the language by double-speakers in the modern world, it is what the term has always meant in English, as far back as it can be traced.

From a...tactical perspective, I would note that, to a swordsman, it is more dangerous to hate or fear an enemy than to love him. You cannot confidently strike an enemy you hate and fear, only when that enemy is rendered utterly helpless will your blade fall upon him, and even then only to wound, not with a true blow. As long as you hate your enemies, they will have more power over you than you have over yourself.

This may not apply to the special, technical sense of the term you have invented for your own private use. But in that case I recommend that you use it only in the privacy of your own head.

"Though hate is usually considered to be a negative emotion by philosophers, religious philosophers such as Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas maintain that it is only healthy to hate sin. Both the Old and the New Testaments quote various forms of hate. David, in his Psalms, thanks God for destroying those that hate him, and thanks Him for hating his enemies.[2] This is the era of wars and kingdoms; armies destroy enemies, hate is political and military. But it is also domestic: David's sons hate each other, and Absalom, David's favorite, will kill his half-brother after the latter rapes and spurns his sister. And after banishment, Abasalom will hate his father and try to destroy him. In the New Testament, hatred focuses on the soul. Evil is internalised and the focus of hatred becomes that part of the heart, the sinning self. Destruction of sinners is celebrated. But all people are, according to the gospels, sinners, and only have to look inside of themselves in order to find sin. In religious terms, therefore, love and hate are inextricable. Loving good means hating sin and turning from vice. Love, as Aquinas teaches, must be divided into love of good things, the healthy movement of the soul true to itself, and love of inappropriate objects, the desire to have and use what may by bad for the soul."

"Augustine was a bishop, priest, and father who remains a central figure, both within Christianity and in the history of Western thought, and is considered by modern historian Thomas Cahill to be the first medieval man and the last classical man."

You would do well to consider another lesson of Augustine in your internal life:

"Augustine is considered an influential figure in the history of education. He introduced the theory of three different categories of students, and instructed teachers to adapt their teaching styles to each student's individual learning style. The three different kinds of students are: the student who has been well-educated by knowledgeable teachers; the student who has had no education; and the student who has had a poor education, but believes himself to be well-educated. If a student has been well educated in a wide variety of subjects, the teacher must be careful not to repeat what they have already learned, but to challenge the student with material which they do not yet know thoroughly. With the student who has had no education, the teacher must be patient, willing to repeat things until the student understands, and sympathetic. Perhaps the most difficult student, however, is the one with an inferior education who believes he understands something when he does not. Augustine stressed the importance of showing this type of student the difference between "having words and having understanding," and of helping the student to remain humble with his acquisition of knowledge."

...perhaps then it is best that I not address you at all. Or your ideas. Or your future.

But perhaps I will ignore what is best and continue with my "specious ad hominem attacks".

For now, I will source my argument against the goodness of hate from that which you have apparently deemed acceptable.

"David, in his Psalms, thanks God for destroying those that hate him, and thanks Him for hating his enemies.[2] This is the era of wars and kingdoms; armies destroy enemies, hate is political and military. But it is also domestic: David's sons hate each other, and Absalom, David's favorite, will kill his half-brother after the latter rapes and spurns his sister. And after banishment, Abasalom will hate his father and try to destroy him. In the New Testament, hatred focuses on the soul. Evil is internalised and the focus of hatred becomes that part of the heart, the sinning self. Destruction of sinners is celebrated. But all people are, according to the gospels, sinners, and only have to look inside of themselves in order to find sin."

I usually decline to accept Wikipedia as an acceptable citation. I shall thus attribute it as "a source accepted by Egghead". Though I suspect that this will be perceived as yet another of my "specious ad hominem attacks".

Chiu: So far, I have cited one primary and one secondary source. My primary source is the Bible, and my secondary source is the entry for Hatred under Wikipedia which is widely read and cited - and is itself a compilation of primary sources of critique.

As would be expected - because I supplied the sources :) - both sources COMPLETELY support my contentions about the legitimacy of hating sin (a subset of evil).

Your only source is yourself and your opinions - and worse yet, you appear to 'represent' a culture (Chinese) and religion (Buddhism?) OUTSIDE of Western Christianity - and yet you presume to 'correct' and 'lecture' me about Western Christianity when Catholicism - the primary source of Western Christianity - is an integral part of my cultural and religious upbringing and education.

How would you feel if I presumed to lecture you about China or Buddhism? You would probably think that I might miss the nuances of those topics - not having been immersed in them by family or culture or education or language.

You are intellectually AND morally lazy in this case - and it is such a disappointment. Better that you stop and concede with grace than proceed with gross inaccuracies and half-truths.

Intellectually, you STILL fail to provide your own source to support your claims - NOT a source that you MIS-interpret for your own ends, but rather a reputable and/or recognized independent source that agrees with you.

IM-morally, you 1) misinterpret the quotation that you included. The quotation instructs to hate sin - granting that sin is found in every person. The quotation supports MY argument rather than yours.

Then, 2) you purposely omit the conclusion of the quotation that explicitly supports my argument and refutes several of your own arguments:

"In religious terms, therefore, love and hate are inextricable. Loving good means hating sin and turning from vice. Love, as Aquinas teaches, must be divided into love of good things, the healthy movement of the soul true to itself, and love of inappropriate objects, the desire to have and use what may by bad for the soul."

Finally, 3) when you talk about my 'future,' you falsely imply that my salvation is in danger because I dare to disagree with you. It's always a specious argument to say or imply that others are going to hell because they disagree with you.

First of all, how do you know who is and isn't going to hell? Next, it's an ad hominem attack implying that others should NOT believe an opponent because that person is a sinner who will end up in hell. Finally, it's just impolite on your part. If your emphasis is on love, then you must try harder to practice what YOU preach.

P.S. Your attacking MY source is far different than YOUR providing your own source - and does NOT in any way release you from sourcing your claims.

I've already pointed out that it is acceptable for Christians to hate sin, though I include the provision that they should not hate sinners (nor the divinely ordained strictures of the natural world that may at times seem obstacles to satisfaction of human desires).

I am curious about the contention that I appear to 'represent' Chinese culture and the Buddhist religion. I may be more knowledgeable about the subjects than some people, but have never attempted to be a representative of either.

Given that I have a far greater personal investment in Western Christianity than I do in Chinese Buddhism...I suppose that I would not feel quite as non-plussed were you to make various disagreeable representations of Chinese Buddhism as I feel about you making such representations of Christianity. That is not to say that you should do so. Buddhist doctrines may have a certain strain of ethical thought that is contrary to cybernetic morality, but it would still be quite inappropriate to represent Buddhism as a hate-based religion.

I find your determination to represent Christianity as being strongly rooted in hate puzzling. I suppose I find it as puzzling that you insist on the most outlandish interpretations of everything I say. While certainly it is possible that hell might be your future (as you say I cannot exclude that possibility), in the context of responding to your post I was talking about the eventuality of your particular strain of hatred based religion making you an enemy to the principles of equal justice before the law and individual freedom which I espouse.

I have not chosen to make you an enemy of freedom and justice. I would rather that you were their friend. But it seems that everything I say to try and persuade you that they are worth defending just makes you more determined to rely on hate. I suppose that is consistent with what I have observed about hate, it seems to be a strangely addictive indulgence...like smoking, I guess.

If sin is found in every person, and yet you do not restrict your feelings of hate to the sin itself but allow them to extend to the sinners, then how can you help but hate all humanity?

Am I not to be allowed to disagree with anything that you can find on Wikipedia? I do not hold that it is necessary to hate in order to love. My experience is that, insofar as a person is feeling hate, they are not feeling love. It seems possible for hate to be simultaneous with fear, anger, or lust, but I have yet to see any credible instance of hate being simultaneous with love. Therefore it would seem that the relationship of sin, hatred of sin, and love of God would be one where it was necessary to cleanse oneself from sin in order to be freed from the presence of hate which would make it impossible to feel love of God.

Is it simply impermissible for me to decline to cite something when I frankly disagree with it?

What odd or unusual claim have I made that needs a citation? And what citation would you accept in favor of those claims?

You have cited references to support your position that hate should not be restricted to sin, but should be extended to sinners and to the laws of nature when they impede the satisfaction of human desires. But I do not find these references sufficiently convincing. If you are going to convince me that hate is a good thing, then I suppose I would need real evidence (not mere citations of another person's opinion) that hate promoted something good. It would be a start if your reasoning were a little more lucid but still clearly motivated by a spirit of hate...I am not really recommending you try, though. My experience is that hatred is inimical to valid reasoning. And I don't feel it proper to encourage you to indulge in hate.

"So it's totally okay to detest sinners (including Muslims), while it's not so good to hate them." Says who? Only you. By the way, the first definition under Hate is usually detest. So, what's the real difference in content anyway except in quibbling over slight variations of terms?!

"You can injure, insult, or hurt evil only as it is represented in the person of individuals opposed to your own needs, wants, and desires." Says who? Only you.

"Hate can drive men to murder, but it cannot motivate them to heroism." Says who? Only you.

"...though I do believe that the written Koran is thoroughly corrupted, both morally and historically...." Says who? Only you.

"...the majority of the English-speaking world does not agree with that definition." Says who? Only you.

"Most English-speakers understand 'hate' to mean what it has meant since before the modern language developed in recognizable form...." Says who? Only you.

"...it is what the term has always meant in English, as far back as it can be traced." Says who? Only you.

"...the special, technical sense of the term you have invented for your own private use...." Says who? Only you.

This was a question, rather than an assertion. To be fair, I think that I have made the point that if we hate everything that intentionally interferes with our human desires (which is how your Catholic sources define evil), rather than only hating sin (which the scriptures do command), then that must include most people in this world, and perhaps the next as well. I regard that as sufficient proof that it is wrong to hate evil in general rather than only hating sin.

"To hate evil consistently is to hate humanity."

You yourself gave a citation that clarified that all humans are sinners, and thus in some degree evil. Thus humanity as a whole is evil and worthy of hate in the degree that they are sinners. And since it is in the whole mainly humans who intentionally interfere with the desires of others, it is predominantly humans that must be hated for evil (insofar as evil is opposition to human desires rather than mere indifference).

"So it's totally okay to detest sinners (including Muslims), while it's not so good to hate them."

It is true that this is more a stylistic nuance, but the term "detest" originally is related to "attest" or "testify". It originally means to speak against something, rather than to harbor emotion against it. I'm fond of these flavorful distinctions in the history of words because they lend a richness of thought that is lacking in the Orwellian modern tendency to reduce everything to being expressible as "good" or "ungood".

Because there is such a tendency, and because it is tied to the effort to disguise and dismantle the history and variety of human experience, I do not take investigation of the lineage of words to be a trifle. For me, understanding what people actually meant by the words they used in times past reveals a deeper perspective that has been intentionally washed out of modern discourse.

But then, I'm not fond of hate either.

"You can injure, insult, or hurt evil only as it is represented in the person of individuals opposed to your own needs, wants, and desires."

Do you claim that it is possible for you to somehow inflict injury on evil in principle? You have the power, perhaps, to wound death? To blind darkness? To poison bitterness? I don't know what to make of your assertion that I should present citations of the inanity of such things.

"Hate can drive men to murder, but it cannot motivate them to heroism."

That you would ask a citation of this...if you are serious, then I am sadder over this than for the insanity of you believing yourself able to deceive falsehood and torment pain.

"...though I do believe that the written Koran is thoroughly corrupted, both morally and historically...."

If you believe that the Koran does not represent moral corruption and a false view of history, then I honestly am bewildered. But I hope that you do not really mean it when you say that I am the only one that says the Koran is wrong.

"...the majority of the English-speaking world does not agree with that definition."

Try going out into the street, accost any stranger with your insight that hate is a central tenet of Christianity. I doubt you will find much agreement. Feel free to consult the majority of the English-speaking world, since I have called them as witnesses. This, at least, is a citation as clear and verifiable as any you have given.

"Most English-speakers understand 'hate' to mean what it has meant since before the modern language developed in recognizable form...."

"...it is what the term has always meant in English, as far back as it can be traced."

The world "hate" comes into English from Old English ("hete") where it had the identical meaning of an emotion of ill-will and revulsion. You should be able to look this up anywhere, it is a commonplace bit of knowledge rather than one requiring specific citation.

"...the special, technical sense of the term you have invented for your own private use...."

I'm afraid that the burden falls on you, rather than me, to demonstrate that your sense of the term is in wide use. You have said "Says who? Only you" repeatedly, without citation, insisting that I had to bear the burden of proof. And some of the things you said it about were enough to make me question your sanity had you been serious.

If your current argument is motivated by hate, I would say that is proof enough that hate is not compatible with sound reason. If it is not, then I really must ask what your motives are for making hate out to be a pillar of your morality.

Chiu: The second definition for Hatred is UNWILLING as in what actions a person is UNWILLING to perform (i.e., sin and evil). I hate sin and evil, therefore I am unwilling to perform sin and evil.

When you define hate itself as a sin or evil which is what you are doing, then you cannot say that you hate sin or evil - which is ridiculous.

You have so much to offer on some topics - but less on others where you are less knowledgeable - and you hate (i.e., are unwilling) to admit your errors and learn new ideas.

I attribute your unique worldview to your culture and religion. I appreciate your insights in some conversations.

In this conversation, I find you to be insincere and insulting.

It is ok to disagree. It is out of bounds to question the sanity of people who legitimately disagree with you - and provide multiple reputable citations for their points - where you refuse to provide any sources except your-very-own-extra-special-self.

Says who? Only you! :(

I am done with this particular conversation. I feel sufficiently satisfied that I have tried to make a dent in your ignorance.

P.S. My inclusion of the comment about the Koran refers to your contention that the WRITTEN Koran - the ONLY Koran that there is - is somehow a misconstruction of the teachings of Mohammed where you claim that Mohammed ordered that the Koran stay oral rather than written. It is contentions like this - among many others - that require a source rather than a sweeping pronouncement from you.

Just to recap: I have the Bible, Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas supporting my view - and your source is that you claim to have 'asked around' unknown people with unknown religion and unknown qualifications and, based on your comments here, I well know that your framing of the question was surely biased to your own flawed, according to Catholic theology, conclusion.

Chiu: Again, you ask the wrong question. Eliminate sin and evil in this world - and consequently, eliminate hatred of sin and evil in this world and the next world.

Now, heaven lacks sin and evil, but heaven still hates human sin and evil evident in this world.

John 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Why would humans perish? Because heaven hates sin and evil....

You fall into the same trap as so many modern people who mistakenly believe that anybody can 'debate' and 'decide' Christianity to suit their own vision, logic, ideas, and preferences. Anything goes....

What I personally consider to be moral is as irrelevant as anyone else - including you.

What the Bible instructs and also Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas conclude about this matter is relevant.